2026 IL App (1st) 250899-U No. 1-25-0899 SIXTH DIVISION July 2, 2026
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________
MICHAEL SCHENK and VANESSA SCHENK, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of Cook County. Plaintiffs-Appellees, ) ) ) v. ) ) ADVOCATE HEALTH AND HOSPITALS ) No. 24 L 000118 CORPORATION d/b/a ADVOCATE CONDELL ) MEDICAL CENTER; ADVOCATE HEALTH ) AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION d/b/a ) ADVOCATE MEDICAL GROUP; ADVOCATE ) The Honorable HEALTH PARTNERS, d/b/a ADVOCATE ) Maire A. Dempsey, PHYSICIAN PARTNERS, a corporation; LAKE ) Judge Presiding. ) HEART SPECIALISTS HEART AND ) VASCULAR DISEASE, a corporation; VITUITY ) PHYSICAN PARTNERSHIP AND ) HEALTHCARE STAFFING SOLUTIONS, a ) corporation; BRYAN S. WIJAS, D.O.; ) BENJAMIN L. ROJAS, D.O.; BRIDGETTE A. ) HARRISON, R.N., ) ) ) Defendants ) ) (Advocate Health and Hospitals Corporation d/b/a ) Advocate Condell Medical Center; Advocate ) Health and Hospitals Corporation d/b/a Advocate ) No. 1-25-0899
Medical Group; Advocate Health Partners, d/b/a ) Advocate Physician Partners, a corporation; Lake ) Heart Specialists Heart and Vascular Disease; and ) ) Benjamin L. Rojas, D.O., ) ) Defendants-Appellants).
____________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE PUCINSKI delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice C.A. Walker and Justice Gamrath concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: We affirm the circuit court’s order denying defendants-appellants’ motion to transfer pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens as we conclude that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the applicable factors.
¶2 Defendants-appellants Advocate Condell Medical Center, Advocate Medical Group, and
Advocate Physician Partners (collectively, Advocate), Lake Heart Specialists Heart and
Vascular Disease, and Dr. Benjamin L. Rojas, appeal the denial of their motion to transfer this
medical malpractice action from Cook County to Lake County under the doctrine of forum non
conveniens. For the following reasons, we affirm the circuit court’s denial of the motion to
transfer.
¶3 BACKGROUND
¶4 In the early morning of January 1, 2023, Michael Schenk collapsed outside of a New Year’s
party in Libertyville, Illinois, due to a cardiac arrest. After his heart was restarted by emergency
responders, he was promptly taken by ambulance to Advocate Condell Medical Center
(Condell), also located in Libertyville, in Lake County.
2 No. 1-25-0899
¶5 Mr. Schenk was given two EKGs within an hour of his arrival at Condell, where he was
evaluated and treated by the three individual defendants herein: Dr. Bryan S. Wijas, D.O.,
Nurse Bridgette A. Harrison and Dr. Benjamin Rojas, D.O. According to plaintiffs, those
treaters failed to timely determine that Mr. Schenk had suffered an ST-segment elevation
myocardial infarction, commonly referred to as a heart attack. Nine hours after his arrival at
Condell, Mr. Schenk was transferred to the cardiac catheterization laboratory. Shortly
thereafter, Dr. Rojas performed a thrombectomy and placed a stent in Mr. Schenk’s heart.
¶6 Later that night, Mr. Schenk was transferred to Northwestern Memorial Hospital
(Northwestern) in Chicago. Mr. Schenk remained at Northwestern for approximately three
weeks, until January 25, 2023. There is no allegation of negligence with respect to Mr.
Schenk’s care at Northwestern.
¶7 On January 4, 2024, Mr. Schenk and his wife Vanessa Schenk (plaintiffs) filed a medical
malpractice complaint in the circuit court of Cook County, alleging that Dr. Wijas, Dr. Rojas,
and nurse Harrison negligently failed to timely diagnose and treat his heart attack. He alleges
that due to this negligence, he suffered permanent heart damage, as well as respiratory and
kidney failure.
¶8 The complaint further pleads that each of Advocate, Lake Heart Specialists Heart and
Vascular Disease, and Vituity Physician Partnership and Healthcare are all liable, on an agency
basis, for the negligence of Dr. Wijas, Dr. Rojas, and nurse Harrison. The complaint included
a loss of consortium claim on behalf of Vanessa Schenk.
¶9 On May 31, 2024, Advocate filed a motion to transfer this case to Lake County under the
doctrine of forum non conveniens. The motion was eventually joined by all other defendants.
In the motion, Advocate emphasized that the alleged negligence took place exclusively in Lake
3 No. 1-25-0899
County at Condell, which is approximately 12 miles away from the Lake County Courthouse,
compared to 40 miles away from the Daley Center in downtown Chicago. Advocate pointed
out that all three named individual defendants, as well as both plaintiffs, reside in Lake County.
Advocate argued that a trial in Cook County would be far more inconvenient to the defendants
and potential witnesses than one in Lake County. Advocate claimed that defendants and
witnesses would be “incredibly burdened” if they had to travel to the Daley Center. Notably,
however, Advocate’s motion did not identify any potential witnesses other than plaintiffs or
defendants. Further, Advocate’s motion did not attach any affidavits regarding the
inconvenience of proceeding in Cook County.
¶ 10 Advocate’s motion further averred that because the alleged negligence occurred in Lake
County, the residents of Lake County had a legitimate interest in resolving such a local
controversy, whereas Cook County has “absolutely no connection” to the case. Advocate also
averred that “there is an immense difference in the litigation congestion” between Lake and
Cook County, although it did not identify any supporting data. Advocate urged that forum
shopping was the only reasonable explanation for the choice to file the case in Cook County,
and that because Cook County is neither the location of the alleged negligence nor the
plaintiffs’ home, it would be “improper” to give deference to their choice to file in Cook
County.
¶ 11 The parties subsequently served forum non conveniens discovery requests. The only
defendants who responded to plaintiff’s forum non conveniens interrogatories were Advocate
and Nurse Harrison. In its responses, Advocate did not identify any potential witnesses other
than plaintiffs and the three individual defendants: Dr. Wijas, Dr. Rojas, and Nurse Harrison.
Advocate otherwise answered that remaining witnesses were yet to be determined. In response
4 No. 1-25-0899
to plaintiffs’ interrogatories asking about the locations of medical facilities affiliated with
Advocate, Advocate stated that it has “over 350 locations across multiple counties” and
referred plaintiffs to its website for a list of all locations.
¶ 12 In her interrogatory responses, Nurse Harrison stated that if trial occurred in Lake County,
“it will be easier to work at Highland Park Hospital before and after court” because she would
“lose less time commuting” compared to a potential trial in Cook County.
¶ 13 In their interrogatory responses, plaintiffs submitted a list of potential witnesses, including
more than 20 medical professionals from Northwestern involved in Mr. Schenk’s treatment
after he was transferred there from Condell. Plaintiffs averred that almost all of the treatment
for his injuries occurred at Northwestern, in Cook County. Plaintiffs also identified 15
witnesses from Lake County, including the three individual defendants herein.
¶ 14 In March 2025, plaintiffs filed their response to the motion to transfer, in which they argued
that the relevant forum non conveniens factors under Illinois case law did not warrant transfer.
With that response, plaintiffs Michael and Vanessa Schenk submitted affidavits which averred
that, although they resided in Lake County, a trial in Cook County would be convenient for
both of them. Plaintiffs’ response emphasized that 28 of the 52 witnesses identified by the
parties resided in Cook County, and that Advocate operates a number of hospitals in Cook
County. Plaintiff averred that of the 1,086 Illinois locations on Advocate’s website, 667 are
located in Cook County.
¶ 15 In arguing that comparative court congestion did not favor transfer, plaintiffs’ response
attached 2023 statistics from the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts (AOIC) showing
that the Cook County Law Division disposed of over 16,000 cases seeking damages of over
$50,000, whereas only 600 such cases were disposed of in Lake County. The same statistics
5 No. 1-25-0899
showed 11,049 such cases remained open in Cook, while 896 such cases remained in Lake
County. Plaintiffs otherwise argued that “court congestion alone is not dispositive.”
¶ 16 On April 10th, 2025, the circuit court heard argument on the motion to transfer. The court
concluded that, despite being “very close,” the moving defendants had not met their burden of
showing that the facts strongly favored transferring the case to Lake County.
¶ 17 In discussing the factors of the forum non conveniens analysis, the court acknowledged the
plaintiffs and individual defendants both reside in Lake County, that the defendants work in
Lake County, and that the allegedly negligent treatment at issue in the case occurred solely in
Lake County. Recognizing that plaintiffs were foreign to Cook County, the court explained
that their choice of forum does not get “as much” deference as is presumed in a typical case,
but still gets “some” deference. In addition, when addressing the ease of access to evidence in
the case, the court described the possibility of a jury visit to Condell as “extremely unlikely,”
given the availability of electronic medical records.
¶ 18 The court also stressed that many of the arguments made by the defendants at the hearing
were not substantiated by information “attached or included in the exhibits” to their filed
motion. Reiterating that the “burden is on the moving parties,” the court found it could not say
that the relevant factors “strongly favor [transfer] based on the information I have in the briefs.”
¶ 19 On April 10, 2025, the trial court issued a written order denying defendants' motion to
transfer “for the reasons stated on the record.” Advocate, joined by Dr. Rojas and Lake Heart
Specialists Heart and Vascular Disease, filed a petition for leave to appeal that decision
pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(2) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020), which this court granted.
¶ 20 ANALYSIS
6 No. 1-25-0899
¶ 21 The sole issue before this court is whether the circuit court erred in denying Advocate’s
motion to transfer this case to Lake County under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
¶ 22 As the parties acknowledge, a forum non conveniens decision lies within the sound
discretion of the trial court. Dawdy v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 207 Ill. 2d 167, 177 (2003);
Langenhorst v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 219 Ill. 2d 430, 441-42 (2006) (“A trial court is
afforded considerable discretion in ruling on a forum non conveniens motion.”). This court will
therefore reverse a circuit court’s decision “only if it can be shown that the court abused its
discretion in balancing the relevant factors.” Evans v. Patel, 2020 IL App (1st) 200258, ¶ 29.
An abuse of discretion only occurs where “no reasonable person” would take the view adopted
by the circuit court in balancing these factors. Langenhorst, 219 Ill. at 442 (citing Dawdy, 207
Ill. 2d at 177).
¶ 23 The inquiry on review is not whether we would have reached the same decision as the
circuit court, but instead whether or not the circuit court “acted arbitrarily, without employing
conscientious judgment, or *** exceeded the bounds of reason and ignored recognized
principles of law so that substantial prejudice resulted.” Pierce v. Cherukuri, 2022 IL App (1st)
210339, ¶ 19 (quoting State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Leverton, 314 Ill. App. 3d 1080,
1083 (2000)). Importantly, this court may use any basis in the record to affirm a circuit court’s
decision on a forum non conveniens motion, even if not relied upon by the circuit court.
Johnson v. Nash, 2019 IL App (1st) 180840, ¶ 33 (quoting Ruch v. Padgett, 2015 IL App (1st)
142972, ¶ 40).
¶ 24 The Illinois venue statute provides: “every action must be commenced (1) in the county of
residence of any defendant who is joined in good faith and with probable cause for the purpose
of obtaining a judgment against him or her and not solely for the purpose of fixing venue in
7 No. 1-25-0899
that county, or (2) in the county in which the transaction or some part thereof occurred out of
which the cause of action arose." 735 ILCS 5/2-101 (West 2026). “If there exists more than
one potential forum, the equitable doctrine of forum non conveniens may be invoked to
determine the most appropriate forum.” Pierce, 2022 IL App (1st) 210339, ¶ 21. The doctrine
is based on considerations of fairness and effective administration of justice, allowing a trial
court to decline jurisdiction when another forum “can better serve the convenience of the
parties and the ends of justice” in a particular case. Id. (citing Vinson v. Allstate, 144 Ill. 2d
306, 310 (1991)).
¶ 25 When deciding a forum non conveniens motion to transfer, the circuit court must “consider
all of the relevant factors, without emphasizing any one factor” to determine if the
circumstances of the case strongly favor transfer. Langenhorst, 219 Ill. at 443; Gridley v. State
Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 217 Ill. 2d 158, 163 (2005) (“the balance of factors must strongly
favor transfer of a case before a plaintiff can be deprived of his chosen forum”).
¶ 26 Our supreme court has identified both private factors (focused on the “convenience of the
litigants”) and public factors (focused on the “administration of the courts”) that must be
balanced in forum non conveniens cases. Id. at 169-70. Private interest factors include “(1)
convenience of the parties; (2) the relative ease of access to sources of testimonial,
documentary, and real evidence; (3) the availability of compulsory process to secure
attendance of unwilling witnesses; (4) the cost to obtain attendance of willing witnesses; (5)
the possibility of viewing the premises, if appropriate; and (6) all other practical considerations
that make a trial easy, expeditious, and inexpensive.” Evans, 2020 IL App (1st) 200258, ¶ 32
(quoting Fennell v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 2012 IL 113812, ¶ 15). Public interest factors include
“(1) the administrative difficulties caused when litigation is handled in congested venues; (2)
8 No. 1-25-0899
the unfairness of imposing jury duty upon residents of a community with no connection to the
litigation; (3) and the interests of having local controversies decided locally.” Id. (quoting
Fennell, 2012 IL 113812, ¶ 16). A defendant seeking transfer bears the burden of showing that
these factors strongly favor defendant’s choice of forum. Pierce, 2022 IL App (1st)
210339, ¶ 22. “Unless the balance of factors strongly favor a defendant’s choice of forum, the
plaintiff’s choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.” Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 444.
¶ 27 Circuit courts must also consider the level of deference afforded to a plaintiff’s choice of
forum. Fennell, 2012 IL 113812, ¶ 18. A plaintiff’s right to select a forum is significant, and
ought not be disturbed unless the applicable interest factors strongly favor transfer to another
forum. Id. The plaintiff’s choice of forum is given “somewhat less deference” where it is not
the site of the actions giving rise to the claim nor the county where plaintiff resides.
Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 442-43. Furthermore, “while courts acknowledge that plaintiffs
may forum shop, courts may not consider this practice in a forum non conveniens analysis.”
Pierce, 2022 IL App (1st) 210339, ¶ 23; Evans, 2020 IL App (1st) 200258, ¶ 33.
¶ 28 Applying these principles to the case at hand, we conclude that the circuit court did not
abuse its discretion in deciding that the moving defendants did not meet their burden of
showing the factors strongly favor transfer to Lake County. Based on what was presented to
the court before its ruling, we cannot say that no reasonable person would agree with the court’s
decision to deny transfer. See Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 442; Fennell, 2012 IL 113812, ¶ 59.
¶ 29 The Court Gave Proper Deference to Plaintiff’s Chosen Forum
¶ 30 Before we address the various interest factors, we note that defendants take issue with the
amount of deference the circuit court afforded plaintiffs’ choice of Cook County as their forum.
They argue that this choice should be given “little,” rather than “some” deference. In
9 No. 1-25-0899
acknowledging that plaintiffs are foreign to Cook County, the circuit court stated that they
“don’t get as much deference.” This is consistent with our supreme court’s holding that foreign
plaintiffs’ choice receives “somewhat less” deference under these circumstances. Id. at 442-43
(emphasis added). We cannot say that the circuit court’s formulation of deference was error,
or that it abused its discretion with respect to the level of deference it applied in this case. See,
e.g., Starr v. Presence Central and Suburban Hospitals Network, 2024 IL App (1st) 231120, ¶
20 (circuit court did not abuse discretion by affording plaintiff’s choice of forum some
deference “even though the Starrs do not reside in Cook County and the negligence they
complain of is not alleged to have occurred there”); Evans, 2020 IL App (2st) 200528, ¶ 37
(where plaintiff resided in Lake County, her choice to sue in Cook County was “owed some
deference” even if the alleged negligence did not occur in Cook County). In any event, as
discussed below, the court reasonably found that, on the limited record before it, the relevant
factors did not weigh strongly in favor of transfer.
¶ 31 The Circuit Court Did Not Abuse its Discretion in Balancing the Private Interest Factors
¶ 32 The first private interest factor in a forum non conveniens analysis is the convenience of
the parties. Starr, 2024 IL App (1st) 231120, ¶ 24. To show that this factor favors transfer,
defendants must show that a Lake County trial would be more convenient for all of the parties
to the case. Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 444. As the circuit court acknowledged, it is undisputed
that all the parties reside in Lake County, including plaintiffs. Further, Dr. Wijas, Dr. Rojas,
and Nurse Harrison work in Lake County. Nurse Harrison stated in her interrogatory answers
that a Lake County trial would be more convenient for her than one in Cook County. These
facts suggest that this factor weighs in favor of Lake County.
10 No. 1-25-0899
¶ 33 However, the circuit court could still reasonably conclude that the moving defendants did
not show this factor strongly weigh in favor of transfer. Despite living in Lake County, both
plaintiffs submitted affidavits that Cook County is convenient. Mr. Schenk averred that he
spends a significant amount of his time conducting business in Cook County. More important,
we find it significant that none of the defendants provided affidavits indicating that proceeding
to trial in Cook County would be significantly more costly or burdensome for them than Lake
County. There is no indication that either of the two physician defendants (neither of whom
answered forum non conveniens discovery) would be significantly inconvenienced. Indeed, the
only statement on the record from an individual defendant was from Nurse Harrison, who
stated in response to interrogatories that it would be “easier” for her to work if the case is tried
in Lake County, because she would “lose less time commuting.” This statement from a single
defendant indicates only relatively minor inconvenience; it certainly did not provide the circuit
court sufficient proof that Lake County was a substantially more appropriate forum for all
parties. See Pierce, 2022 IL App (1st) 210339, ¶ 32 (fact that one of the defendants would need
to “travel 80 more miles to appear in Cook County” instead of McDonough County did not
control, given that other defendants were residents in Cook County).
¶ 34 We note that in analogous decisions involving medical malpractice that allegedly occurred
in adjacent counties, this court has declined to find an abuse of discretion in denying a transfer
out of Cook County. See Evans, 2020 IL App (1st) 200528; Starr, 2024 IL App (1st) 231120,
¶ 30. While parties from a contiguous county may find a Cook County trial somewhat less
convenient, the circuit court may still reasonably find that this does not weigh strongly enough
to overcome the plaintiff’s choice of forum. See Evans, 2020 IL App (1st) 200258, ¶ 41 (the
first private interest factor did not strongly weigh in favor of Lake County, despite defendant
11 No. 1-25-0899
doctor’s affidavit that Lake County would be more convenient because his work and family
are closer to Lake County courthouse than the Daley Center); see also Starr, 2024 IL App (1st)
231120, ¶ 30 (affirming denial of a motion to transfer to Will County, despite affidavits from
defendant nurses that they lived and worked in Will County and that a trial in Cook County
would interfere with care of patients); O’Brien v. Advanced Urology, 2026 IL App (1st)
250608-U, ¶¶ 21-23 (declining to find the circuit court abused its discretion in denying a
motion to transfer from Cook County to Will County, despite multiple defendant doctors
submitting affidavits stating that a Will County trial would be more convenient for treating
patients).
¶ 35 We reiterate that it was the moving defendants’ burden to show that private interest factors
strongly weighed in favor of transfer. Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 444. For whatever reason,
defendants did not provide the circuit court with any affidavits or detailed explanation that
Cook County would be a significantly less convenient forum than Lake County. Given the
record before us, we cannot say that the circuit court abused its discretion by finding that this
factor did not strongly favor transfer.
¶ 36 We continue to the next private interest factor, “the relative ease of access to sources of
documentary evidence.” Evans, 2020 IL App (1st) 200528, ¶ 43. Defendants claim that the
circuit court erred by failing to address this factor. However, defendants’ argument on this
point was largely conclusory. In the brief in support of the motion to transfer, the entirety of
the argument on this point was as follows:
“Second, evidence is more accessible in Lake County. This case
revolves around the care and treatment of Michael Schenk while at
Advocate Condell, located in Libertyville, Lake County. Records,
12 No. 1-25-0899
evidence, and relevant information pertaining to this treatment will
be maintained at Advocate Condell. Should a Cook County jury
need to make inspections of the site or any equipment, it would be
nearly impossible, and most certainly inconveniencing, to inspect
evidence located in Lake County. It would certainly weigh in favor
of transfer to Lake County should this issue arise given the
proximity of Advocate Condell to the Lake County Courthouse.”
¶ 37 At the hearing on the motion to transfer, the circuit court acknowledged this point, albeit
briefly, in stating that it is “extremely unlikely that any jury is going to need to go to the
hospital. I don’t even think the parties are going to have to go to the hospital, unless there’s
some EMR [electronic medical records] issue or something like that.” We find no error in these
remarks. There can be little doubt that most, if not all, documentary evidence will be equally
accessible whether trial occurs in Cook County or Lake County. See Pierce, 2022 IL App (1st)
210339, ¶ 35 (where “any documentary evidence, such as medical records, are now produced
in an electronic format that can be easily distributed to the parties” in either county, “this fact
does not weigh in favor of transfer”). Defendants do not articulate any plausible reason why
documentary evidence would be any less accessible in Cook County. Indeed, defendants
already attached relevant Condell medical records to their brief to the circuit court. Thus,
although the trial court did not discuss this factor in any detail in the course of its ruling, we
find no basis in the record to conclude that the circuit court erred with respect to this factor.
¶ 38 The next private interest factor is “availability of compulsory process to secure attendance
of unwilling witnesses.” Evans, 2020 IL App (1st) 200528, ¶ 44. Defendants concede that this
factor is neutral, as both Lake County and Cook County courts are capable of securing the
13 No. 1-25-0899
attendance of unwilling witnesses. We agree. “Where the transfer to some other forum does
not solve the compulsory attendance problem, the compulsory process factor is regarded as
being neutral, and not strongly favoring transfer.” Erwin v. Motorola, Inc., 408 Ill. App. 3d
261, 278 (2011). Here, this factor is neutral and cannot strongly favor transfer.
¶ 39 “[T]he cost to obtain attendance of the willing witnesses” is the fourth private interest
factor. Evans, 2020 IL App (1st) 200528, ¶ 45. Defendants claim that the circuit court abused
its discretion by not addressing this factor. Although the trial court did not explicitly identify
this factor, it acknowledged the basis for defendants’ arguments on this point: that the treating
medical professionals accused of negligence are based in Lake County. We again note that
none of them submitted affidavits detailing any hardship in attending trial in Cook County.
Indeed, defendants do not articulate how it would be unduly costly for any witnesses to attend
trial in Cook County, apart from noting the distance from Condell to either the Lake County
courthouse or the Daley Center. It is undisputed that Condell is approximately 28 miles closer
to the Lake County courthouse than to the Daley Center, but we decline to find that the circuit
court abused its discretion by not finding this fact strongly favored transfer. See Foster, 2016
IL App (5th) 150055, ¶ 36 (42-mile distance between courthouses was a “relatively short
distance between the chosen forum and alternate forum”). To the extent any party sought to
call a witness from outside Illinois, this factor is likely neutral, given the relative closeness of
Lake and Cook County. See Evans, 2020, IL App (1st) 200528, ¶ 45 (finding this factor neutral,
where “any witness flown in to testify would have to travel to one of the airports located in
Chicago” whether trial took place in Lake or Cook County). We also note that plaintiffs
identified a number of witnesses who are medical professionals at Northwestern, located in
Cook County, who presumably could attend proceedings in Cook County just as easily as Lake
14 No. 1-25-0899
County. In short, we cannot say the trial court erred in declining to find that this factor strongly
favored transfer.
¶ 40 Defendants also claim that the circuit court abused its discretion with respect to the fifth
private interest factor, “the possibility of viewing the premises, if appropriate.” Id. at ¶ 32. Our
supreme court has instructed that “This convenience factor is not concerned with the necessity
of viewing the site of the injury, but rather is concerned with the possibility of viewing the site,
if appropriate.” (Emphasis in original). Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d at 178. Notably, our supreme court’s
formulation of this factor referenced the prospect of viewing the site of an accident, not the site
of alleged medical negligence. See id. at 179 (“ ‘the possibility of having a jury view the scene
of an accident is an important consideration in ruling upon a forum non conveniens motion.’ ”
(quoting Moore v. Chicago & North Western Transportation Co., 99 Ill. 2d 73, 80 (1983)).
This court has since recognized that “ ‘as a practical matter, a viewing of the site is rarely or
never called for in a medical negligence case.’ ” Starr, 2024 IL App (1st) 231120, ¶ 47.
Nonetheless, “[w]hile rarely applicable in medical malpractice cases, courts still weigh
whether a view may be appropriate.” Lutzenkirchen v. OSF Healthcare System, 2025 IL App
(1st) 250028, ¶ 44 (citing Hackl v. Advocate Health & Hospitals Corp., 382 Ill. App. 3d 442,
452 (2008)).
¶ 41 Defendants’ primary claim of error in regard to this factor is that the circuit court only
considered the necessity of a site visit, rather than the possibility of one. We acknowledge the
trial court’s remarks that it was “extremely unlikely that any jury is going to need to go to the
hospital” referred to the necessity of a site visit, rather than whether such a visit was possible
or appropriate. Yet, even assuming the trial court should have framed this factor as a question
of the possibility of site visit rather than necessity, we do not find any basis to find an abuse of
15 No. 1-25-0899
discretion. We reiterate that our decision to affirm the circuit court’s decision can be based on
any evidence in the record, regardless of the court’s stated reasoning. See Johnson, 2019 IL
App (1st) 180840, ¶ 33. Nothing in the record or defendants’ briefing suggests that a jury visit
to Condell would ever be appropriate at a trial of this medical malpractice action. We thus
agree with the circuit court that this factor is relatively insignificant and certainly does not
strongly favor transfer from plaintiffs’ chosen forum.
¶ 42 The final private interest factor consists of “other practical considerations, making
trial easy, expeditious, and less expensive.” Evans, 2020 IL App (1st) 200528, ¶ 47.
Defendants direct our attention to this court’s recent decision in Lutzenkirchen, which indicated
that “travel, traffic, convenience, and witness availability,”
including the ability of medical professionals to treat patients without disruption, are all
appropriate considerations under this factor. 2025 IL App (1st) 250028, ¶ 49 (reversing denial
of motion to transfer medical malpractice action), PLA allowed March 25, 2026, no. 132601.
Defendants rely on Lutzenkirchen to argue that such considerations favor transfer here.
However, the circumstances of Lutzenkirchen (arising from alleged medical malpractice in
Rockford, Illinois) are very different from the case at bar. Whereas the instant dispute involves
a choice between adjacent counties, Lutzenkirchen concerned a motion to transfer from Cook
County to Winnebago County, whose courthouse is approximately 88 miles away from the
Daley Center. That is roughly twice the distance between the Daley Center and the Lake
County courthouse in Waukegan. Because of this geographic disparity, the travel times and
costs for parties and witnesses in Lutzenkirchen were much more significant than in the present
case, where there is a relatively short distance between the two forums at issue. See Foster,
2016 IL App (5th) 150055, ¶ 36 (“relatively short distance between the chosen forum and the
16 No. 1-25-0899
alternate forum substantially reduces the burden of travel and makes it unlikely” that chosen
forum is more costly or inconvenient). Further, in Lutzenkirchen the motion to transfer was
supported by affidavits from three individual defendants (two physicians and a certified
registered nurse anesthetist) attesting that trial in Cook County would be significantly more
disruptive than proceeding in Winnebago County. 2025 IL App (1st) 250028, ¶ 6. Thus, the
final private interest factor favored transfer because defendants “would face disruption in their
medical practices if required to appear in court.” Id. ¶ 49. Here, the moving defendants offered
no such affidavits. See Seilheimer v. Olsen, 2025 IL App 240418, ¶ 46 (in affirming denial of
motion to transfer from Cook to Lake County, emphasizing that defendant offered no affidavits
that any witness would be inconvenienced by Cook County). Although the fact that Lake
County and Cook County are contiguous is not dispositive, their proximity affects the
calculation of whether defendants met their burden to show that private factors strongly favor
transfer. See id. ¶ 47 (Where defendant relied on the fact that treating physicians worked in
Lake County without providing further details, “it feels safe to surmise that the difference in
their travel time to the Lake County courthouse versus the Daley Center would be measured in
minutes, not hours – again, a ‘battle over the minutiae.’ ”) (quoting Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at
450)).
¶ 43 In sum, some of the private interest factors might slightly favor transfer to Lake County,
while others are neutral. Given the lack of supporting affidavits or additional facts before the
circuit court, we cannot say the circuit court abused its discretion in determining these factors
did not strongly weigh in favor of transfer.
¶ 44 The Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Weighing the Public Interest Factors
17 No. 1-25-0899
¶ 45 We continue our analysis with the three public interest factors, starting with the first, “the
administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion.” Evans, 2020 IL App (1st) 200528,
¶ 49. It is important to note that court congestion is “a relatively insignificant factor, especially
where the record does not show the other forum would resolve the case more quickly.” First
Nat’l Bank v. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d 511, 517 (2002). With respect to this factor, defendants point
to 2023 statistics regarding the caseloads of Cook and Lake County. According to the AOIC’s
annual report, in 2023, Cook County saw over 161,000 new civil cases filed (including over
13,000 seeking damages in excess of $50,000), compared to just over 13,000 total new civil
cases in Lake County (only 900 of which sought more than $50,000 in damages). See
https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/2e8fe39f-d040-47ee-
a2b5-d53880fccb19/2023%20Annual%20Report%20Statistical%20Summary.pdf
Additionally, the number of civil cases increased to over 145,000 in Cook County, while the
number of Lake County civil cases decreased to just under 10,000. Citing Lutzenkirchen,
(which discussed the difference in case load between Cook and Winnebago County),
defendants argue that the difference in case load alone means this factor weighs strongly in
favor of transfer. 2025 IL App (1st) 250028, ¶¶ 56-58.
¶ 46 Notably, defendants did not include these statistics in their circuit court brief supporting
the motion to transfer. In that brief, defendants merely stated “there is an immense difference
in the litigation congestion between the Cook County and Lake County docket” without any
reference to particular statistics. Rather, it was plaintiffs who attached the 2023 AOIC report
as an exhibit to their opposition to the motion to transfer, to suggest that Cook County
efficiently disposed of cases.
¶ 47 During the hearing, defendants’ argument on this factor consisted of the following:
18 No. 1-25-0899
“I think there’s little to no doubt that both Cook County and Lake
County have congestion. However, Plaintiff claims in his response
that Cook County closed 16,184 cases in 2023, which is quite good,
whereas Lake County only closed 600. However, at the beginning
of 2023, Lake County only had 555 cases in progress, whereas Cook
County had 13,591. So that’s comparing apples to oranges when
Plaintiff claims that Lake County is more congested than Cook
County.”
¶ 48 That is, defendants’ counsel correctly pointed out that Cook County, unsurprisingly, has a
much larger case load than Lake County. However, “the proper consideration of this factor is
not the number of cases alone but the efficiency with which the court handles those cases.”
Seilheimer v. Olsen, 2025 IL App (1st) 240418, ¶ 67; see also Starr, 2024 IL App (1st) 231120,
¶ 63 (although Cook County had thousands more pending law division cases than Will County,
“These number alone do not signify anything, however, as Cook County is more populous and
employs more judges.”) Although Cook County “has many more cases [than Lake County], it
also has many more judges.” (Emphasis in original.) Seilheimer, 2025 IL App (1st)
240418, ¶ 66. We note that website for the Circuit Court of Cook County lists 48 judges in the
Law Division of Cook County. https://www.cookcountycourtil.gov/judges. In contrast, the
website for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Court (which includes Lake County) lists 12 judges
for the entire Civil Division, which encompasses law, chancery, arbitration, foreclosure, and
small claims. https://19thcircuitcourt.state.il.us/1300/Courtroom-Assignments.
¶ 49 Our court has recently declined to find the court congestion factor favored transfer from
Cook County to Lake County. Seilheimer, 2025 IL App (1st) 240418, ¶¶ 66-68. And in this
19 No. 1-25-0899
case, defense counsel acknowledged at the hearing that “both Cook County and Lake County
have congestion.”
¶ 50 We reiterate that it is the defendant’s burden to demonstrate that the relevant factors
strongly favor transfer. Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 444. Based on the information and
arguments before the circuit court regarding the relative court congestion in Cook and Lake
County, the court reasonably declined to find that this factor strongly favored transfer.
¶ 51 We turn to the public interest factor of “the interest in having local controversies decided
locally.” Evans, 2020 IL App (1st) 200528, ¶ 54. We “recognize that our supreme court has
held that the location of the injury giving rise to the litigation is the most significant factor in
giving any county a local interest.” Id. (citing Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d at 183).
¶ 52 On this factor, defendants refer us to decisions favoring transfer where the alleged medical
negligence occurred in another county and where the medical defendants primarily or
exclusively practiced in that other county. See Lutzenkirchen 2025 IL App (1st) 250028, ¶¶ 64-
69 (transfer warranted where the “large majority of defendants practice exclusively in
Winnebago County,” where the alleged negligence occurred); Gundlach v. Lind, 353 Ill. App.
3d 677, 683 (2004) (finding this factor strongly favored transfer where the alleged negligence
occurred at a hospital in McHenry and so “this is a local controversy that would be of interest
to the citizens of McHenry County who rely on defendants for their medical treatment, while
the citizens of Cook County have no interest in this litigation”).
¶ 53 We agree with defendants that this factor favors Lake County, the site of the alleged
medical negligence at Condell. Nonetheless, we do not find that the circuit court abused its
discretion in declining to find that this factor strongly warranted transfer, as Cook County still
has some interest in the matter. This court has recognized that Cook County has some interest
20 No. 1-25-0899
in claims against medical providers who treat Cook County residents, even if the alleged
negligence was not committed in Cook County. See Pierce, 2022 IL App (1st) 210339, ¶¶ 51-
52 (although negligence occurred in other counties, since defendants “have offered medical
care to Cook County residents, Cook County has an interest in the litigation.”); Cain v.
Chatterji, 2025 IL App (1st) 231744-U, ¶¶ 67-68 (fact that defendant physician admitted that
he and other defendants treated Cook County residents gave Cook County “some interest in
the litigation, even if the alleged negligence did not occur there”).
¶ 54 Condell is affiliated with defendant Advocate Medical Group, which has a considerable
presence in Cook County. Advocate does not dispute that it operates numerous medical
facilities in Cook County. This court has found Advocate’s presence in this county creates
some interest for Cook County, even in cases where the alleged negligence takes place
elsewhere. See Hackl v. Advocate Health & Hosps. Corp., 382 Ill. App. 3d 422, 452 (2008)
(“Cook County and its residents also have an interest in Hackl's case because defendant
Advocate is a healthcare provider in Cook County and the greater Chicago area”); Prouty v.
Advocate Health & Hospitals Corp., 382 Ill App. 3d 490, 497 (2004) (“Any county to which
Advocate provides service has an interest in the outcome of the case.”).
¶ 55 We recognize that the medical treatment giving rise to this claim took place outside of
Cook County, and the individual defendants are residents of Lake County. Though Cook
County does not have a very strong interest in this particular case, Advocate Medical Group’s
strong presence in Cook County thus avails its residents of some interest. We do not mean to
suggest that Cook County’s interest is stronger than Lake County’s interest, but it is enough
for us to say that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in finding that this factor did not
strongly weigh in favor of transfer.
21 No. 1-25-0899
¶ 56 The same logic applies to the remaining public interest factor, “the unfairness of burdening
citizens in an unrelated forum with jury duty.” Evans, 2020 IL App (1st) 200528, ¶ 50. Because
we have concluded that Cook County has some interest in resolving this dispute, we cannot
say that it is an unrelated forum and its citizens are being unfairly burdened with jury duty. See
Hackl, 382 Ill. App. 3d at 452 (because Cook County had a genuine interest in medical
malpractice claims against defendants who are healthcare providers in Cook County, “it is not
unfair to impose the expense of trial and burden of jury duty on Cook County residents”).
¶ 57 We readily acknowledge that Lake County has a stronger factual connection to this case.
However, we keep in mind that plaintiff’s choice of forum is still entitled to some deference,
and it remained defendants’ burden to show the relevant factors strongly favored transfer. Our
inquiry on review is “not what decision we would have reached if we were reviewing the facts
on a clean slate, but whether the [circuit] court acted in a way that no reasonable person would.”
Susman v. North Star Trust Co., 2015 IL App (1st) 142789 (quoting Vivas v. The Boeing Co.,
392 Ill. App. 3d 644, 657 (2009)).
¶ 58 We recognize that the circuit court did not individually address each of the applicable
private and public forum non conveniens factors during the hearing on defendant’s motion to
transfer. However, our role is to assess whether the circuit court’s ultimate conclusion was
unreasonable on the record before us, regardless of the stated reasoning. See Rodriguez v.
Sherriff’s Merit Com’n of Kane County, 218 Ill. 2d 342, 357 (2006) (“The reasons given for a
judgment or order are not material if the judgment or order itself is correct.”). We cannot say
that the circuit court reached a decision that was unreasonable, especially on the limited record
presented in support of defendants’ motion.
¶ 59 CONCLUSION
22 No. 1-25-0899
¶ 60 The circuit court could reasonably conclude that defendants failed to meet their burden to
show the applicable factors strongly weigh in favor of transfer. We therefore conclude that the
circuit court did not abuse its discretion, and we affirm the denial of defendants’ motion to
¶ 61 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of Circuit Court of Cook County is affirmed.
¶ 62 Affirmed.